Schllc

Wouldn’t they have had to do the conversion in 1998 at the tear down, or when they topped it in 2008? They said the Lycoming factory did the tear down. That may be an error in the brokers listing using the old engine model. Everything in aviation is a trade off. Even if someone were to choose to put the 400 it takes to restore this plane, they would end up with a nearly new plane, outfitted to that individuals tastes and specifications. It comes with a premium for sure, but if you own and fly it for ten years that premium is somewhat irrelevant. There are probably cheaper candidates out there, but there will be compromises with all of them, pick your poison….

That blade looks like a casting in that picture. I always thought they were machined out of billet for this reason. it is possible the billet had a defect but it’s a whole lot rarer than it is with cast aluminum. defects from porosity in casting is very easy, and once that corrosion starts its inexorable. wonder if McCauley is going to replace it so they can analyze.

Well, after flying east yesterday with 60-80 knot headwinds the entire way, I feel like it does not have enough power!

I’m pretty sure that centrifugal force would preclude it from coming even close to the airplane. I would think vibration damage could be bad enough to rip the engine from the plane.

I can’t even imagine the vibration/oscillation that engine was going through. I always wondered what would happen if you lost a blade in cruise. it probably wasn’t as bad with the heavy half staying on the plane. im dying to know if he shut down the engine to land. I’ve always thought you would have to…

The 135 only requires planes that carry 10 or more or “require” two pilots. Does Lear 55 require two?

I got overhaul quotes, including accessories from several shops for under 60. From some well recommended shops I would add.. That’s assuming crank, case and cam are good. but all the “while you are there’s” will easily creep it to 120, then Avionics’s or interior could easily be another 100. However, or 320 you’d be in a pretty nice bravo. I do believe some of the early ones had lower UL, and assume that can be rectified with an stc, but the bravo guys can opine. 320 for an early bravo would be the best if you had to sell, but if your going to fly for five-10 years it wouldn’t be money poorly spent. And it would likely be much easier to sell.

No one would accept the work, because they don’t have to. It’s the captive element of the market. I get it, I won’t allow someone to box me in either, but I communicate with my clients daily! And schedule overruns are usually 90% a result of their inability to decide, or they change their mind. This becomes frustrating for them at times I’m sure, but with constant communication and me explaining the implications over and over, they are seldom upset with me. Aviation shops, even the good ones just don’t take the time to communicate. when my avionic work that was supposed to take three months went 14 months over schedule I received exactly zero calls or emails. They had no good reason so they took the path of least resistance. At one point I waited to see how long it would take them to contact me. At two months I couldn’t take it any longer and I called.

That appears to be the original n number.

Not so quick…. You would save over 300# from the two turbo piston engines, your nacelles and cowlings would be a LOT more aerodynamic simply because the engine is so much smaller. You would absolutely have to fly in the FL to take advantage of this mod. i have time in a twin C but am not as familiar with what they did for CG. Is there an equivalent of Charlie weights for the piper? There are also a lot of performance benefits to the reduced weight. The TC already has incredible short field performance, the stol kit makes it even better, dropping 300# would probably let it take off in less than 500’. Then there is the turbine reliability… Lastly, There are not a lot of turbo Comanches around, and there will likely never be a new conversion. If nothing else, the cool factor of a turbine TC could only be bested by a twin turbine Mooney!

You do not need the waas boxes to get Adsb, you can install the 345r with the waas capability. But be aware this only provides waas for the Adsb, it does not provide waas for navigation. And no, the 275 will not provide legal waas to the g1000

Obtaining the boxes is challenging. It possible. I have done it three times. there are only two versions of the boxes that work with the Mooney, so make sure you get the right ones. Brian Kendrick, or Paul Maxwell are the in,y two I would go to for this mod. In fact, Paul may have some waas boxes. There are several specific things, procedurally that have to be done correctly for it to go smooth. I’m sure most avionic shops can do it, but they will fumble around with trial and error before accomplishing so it could fake a while and likely cost more than the two I mentioned.

It is not an option yet.

Only one transponder that I know of which is the 345r. gia63w is the only path to waas. You will have to find salvage ones. they are out there regularly, you just have to be vigilant and willing to pay. they will be 10-12k each. Plus install and the new garmin software.

I sympathize with the issues these guys have with labor, it certainly alters the landscape. But my business is identical with one exception. Clients can easily leave if they are unhappy with me, the “captive” part of this industry is what shapes the business practices. I do not believe most of these guys intentionally lie about circumstances, but knowing that a client has no option would shape any business owners decisions. I typically don’t haggle either, it gets you nowhere. If you don’t like what you are getting, smile, pay the bill and find a new provider. Here is my grievance… I build high end custom homes. While I don’t know what challenges each project will bring, I know that it will bring some. They all do. One of our homes takes an average of 12-18 months to build and that variance is 100% driven by the owner. However, I have built one in as short as 5 months, where a client wanted a spec built and he provided a budget and let me make all the decisions. So should I tell clients I can do it in 5 months since it is possible, or should I tell them what I know will happen, which is that it will take 12-18? All I am asking of these shops is to provide me a time frame that they are comfortable with, whatever that is, so I can prepare myself for a realistic expectation. And of course that is with the understanding that if they peel back a layer and find a legitimate problem the delays will come. Communication is key, but again, when your client has no options, it’s easier to kick the can. I have a very strong suspicion that this attitude will drive me away from aviation before any other circumstance. It isn’t just about the money, it’s the principle that matters too!

No. It does not require much more rudder than one without the upgrade, and it has never felt unstable or dangerous. in fact when you are taking off from an airport like north Perry in Florida, where there is NOWHERE you can land and survive if you lose an engine, you are grateful for every single hp. IIRC, the extra ho is only supposed to be used in takeoff, not cruise. the difference between the 280 and 310 is definitely noticeable, but it is not as if it’s going from a Camry to an F1 car. I do agree with Don however, in that is certainly not a necessity in an acclaim. It is absolutely something I would want in an ovation. And if you bought an acclaim with the mod, you do not have to use it, but I don’t believe it is worth what it costs to add.

Aside from the $9,000 they quoted to change the carpet I didn’t try to negotiate the price. I only wanted a rational time estimate. it isn’t taking people six months of labor to paint a plane. After they have done “x” amount of planes you come to know what to expect and while you may not be able to say it will be exactly the number of hours, you know it won’t be 10x that amount unless some easily explainable situation arises. I am in a similar business, similar with regard to owners and expectations. I tell people what I actually think it will take, and I tell them exactly what will cause it to go over. I lose a lot of bids, but my clients are all happy. I am not trying to force a guy into a unreasonable time frame or price. I am asking THEM to dictate the schedule, but I want them to be accountable. Apparently that isn’t a thing anymore …

So I had a time slot and the shop kept sending me estimates that were obviously not written for my plane and demanding deposits. I wrote an email trying to clarify the scope and get them to include the things I asked for and they just declined the job. I have been through the wringer with my projects in the past with people tearing my plane open and then just shrugging as they hold it hostage for months, or even over a year last time! I just want someone who will write a clear scope and provide some expectation of a time frame that we both agree on. I’m willing to wait the time they tell me, and provide a cushion but an open ended price and time frame with nothing in writing isn’t going to work for me. HELP!!

When I spoke to George, he was convinced that it was the dry assembly of the ribs to skin in the fuel tank areas that were the “deficiency”. in our conversation he said he worked in the Aerostar factory assembling the planes in the late 60’s and early 70’s. He said they wet those parts prior to assembly. I own an Aerostar too, and week “seeps” and repairs are a pretty regular item on these aircraft as well. This in spite of them being assembled “correctly”. It is a fleet that is at least 20x smaller so I do t have any data to compare, but from talking to other owners and my experience over three years now, those tanks leak and need repair as well. At this juncture, t’s pretty difficult to believe that the fuel is not the problem here. it seems that resisting the obvious and inevitable is going to cause a lot more damage than pulling back a bit to reevaluate. Attacking an entire fleet on the scant evidence he is claiming seems to be a stretch at best.

The cost of 1/4 on the sides is minimal and no additional labor. I would think any mass would help with noise but am dubious as to the actual benefit. I planned on doing the 1/4” all around. I personally would not like the obstruction of the vent in the copilot window and 90% of the time find the kool scoop so effective I don’t have to leave the door open at all.

A kool scoop is a must have. Don’t miss my ac since I got one.

Those two engines on a Comanche at 11 gallons an hour would have some range. Especially if it’s efficient at 25k plenty of fuel capacity how cool would a turbine twinkie be?

I put the darkest I could find on the rear. I usually have foil sunshades too

I applied the static film semi permanently to the back windows in both planes. Looks great. Works even better and I also keep squares to move around as needed.

While you often make fair points, you package them in a shit sandwich, then wonder why no one wants to take a bite. How about you take your own advice and not be ugly in your responses. If you were a bit more tactful and circumspect you may actually persuade a few folks.